Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lalaram @ Lallu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2018
Author: Anjuli Palo
Bench: Anjuli Palo
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.35/2008
Lalaram @ Lallu and another
Vs.
State of M.P.
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Gangele, Judge
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Smt. Sushila Paliwal , Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Shukla, Government Advocate for the
respondent-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether approved for reporting (Yes/No)
JUDGMENT
(20/01/2018) Per : S.K. Gangele, J. :-
Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 07.12.2007 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in Sessions Trial No.165/2006 whereby the trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 450 read with 34, 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to undergo two years R.I. with fine of Rs.100/- each, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. six months respectively.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that wife of one of the accused Lalaram, Laxmibai was living with the deceased from 4 to 5 months back. On this ground appellant Lalaram @ Lallu had ill-will against 2 the deceased. On 28.08.2006 the deceased Heeralal came to Salamatpur in the house of Kapuribai. On 29.08.2006 at about 4:00 O'clock when the deceased and his brother were in the house, appellant Lallu @ Lalaram armed with an axe and his brother Takhta Singh armed with lathi entered into the house. Accused Lalaram asked from the deceased where is my wife. Heeralal replied that she had gone to the house of her parents. On this ground, appellant Lallu @ Lalaram inflicted injuries by an axe on the person of the deceased and appellant Takhta Singh inflicted injuries by danda. Kapuribai tried to save the deceased, they had also beaten her. Deceased was died on the spot. Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station by Kapuribai (PW-4). Police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet.
3. Appellants abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. Trial Court held the appellants guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 452, 302/34 and 323/34 of IPC and awarded the sentences as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
4. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was living with the wife of appellant Lalaram illegally and looking to the nature of injuries the act of the appellants would fall under Section 304 part-I of IPC. Appellants are entitled to be given benefit of Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC.
3
5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the appellants entered into the house where the deceased was staying, they were armed with the deadly weapons. They had inflicted number of injuries on the person of the deceased and at the time of incident, there was no sudden provocation. The appellants had taken revenge and the trial Court has rightly held the appellants guilty for the offences and awarded proper punishment.
6. Kapuribai (PW-4) is the injured eye witness. She deposed that wife of accused Lallu @ Lalaram had come to my house. She was living with the deceased. After 2½ months the appellants came to my house and enquired from the deceased that where is wife of Lallu. Takhta Singh armed with danda and Lalaram armed with an axe. They had inflicted injuries on the deceased. Takhta Singh had inflicted blow by wooden stick on the head of the deceased. Lallu @ Lalaram inflicted blow on right hand and right leg of the deceased with an axe. When I tried to save my son they had also beaten me. Thereafter, Prem and Lalaram reached on the spot. My son was died. I informed the police and lodged the FIR (Ex.P/4). I affixed my thumb impression.
7. Prem Singh (PW-5) is the brother of the deceased. He is another eye witness. He deposed the same facts that wife of Lallu @ Lalaram had come to live with the deceased. The appellant Lallu was armed with an axe and Takhta Singh was armed with danda. 4 They entered into the house and they had beaten the deceased. Thereafter, they ran away. Police seized an axe from Lallu @ Lalaram on his instruction and a danda was seized from Takhta Singh on his instruction vide seizure memos (Ex.P/8 and P/9). I signed both the documents. I signed the memorandum (Ex. P/10) and panchnama (Ex.P/11).
8. Narbada Prasad (PW-6) is another brother of the deceased. He also deposed that he was present on the spot and the appellants had inflicted blows by an axe and danda on the person of the deceased. The mother of the deceased was also beaten by them. He further deposed that he signed the memorandum (Ex.P/10 and P/11) and seizure memo of axe (Ex.P/8) and danda (Ex.P/9), which were seized.
9. Dr. S. Das (PW-8) examined Kapuribai (PW-4) and deposed that he noticed following injuries on the person of Kapuribai :-
1. Swelling and pain on right hand.
2. One bruise of 3 cm x 2 cm on right shoulder.
3. One bruise of 6 cm x 2 cm on the right thigh.
4. One bruise of 4 cm x 2 cm on the left thigh.
5. One lacerated wound on left forearm of 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm.
Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object. They were simple in nature, except injury no.1.
5
10. Dr. S. Das (PW-8) further deposed that he performed postmortem of the deceased. He deposed that he noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased :-
"(i) Big incised wound on right arm from Axilla to mid arm medial side muscles and big vessels are cut in corresponding area 12cmx 5cmx bone exposed.
(ii) Big incised wound on right leg 10cmx 4cm x bone deep Tibia and Fibula is fractured (between knee and ankle).
(iii) Lacerated wound on left eye brow left side 3cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.
(iv) Lacerated wound at left parietal area of skull 4cm x 2 cm x 1 cm.
(v) Bruise present on left side lower part of chest 4cm x 2cm."
Injuries no.1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries no.3 and 4 were caused by hard and blunt object.
11. Ku. Aruna Singh (PW-9) is the Investigating Officer, he deposed that I was posted as Sub-Inspector, Station House Officer Incharge, Police Station Sanchi and conducted investigation of the case. I arrested the appellant Lalaram and on his memorandum (Ex.P/10) an axe was seized by seizure memo (Ex.P/8). Similarly, on the memorandum of appellant Takhta Singh (Ex.P/11), a danda was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/9). I recorded the statements of Prem Singh (Ex.P/2), Narbada Prasad, Laxmibai and Revaram. Seized articles were sent to FSL.
6
12. Laxmibai (PW-10) deposed that 10 to 12 years before I was married to Lalaram. No issue was born. He was a habitual drinker. Hence, I went to the home of my father. My parents fixed my relationship with Heeralal. I was living with Heeralal as his wife at Salamatpur. Lalaram had information about this fact. My husband Heeralal went to the house of my mother at Ratanpur where Lalaram and his brother had killed the deceased. I received the information from my brother-in-law.
13. There are three eye witnesses of the case. Kapuribai (PW-4) is the injured eye witness. FIR (Ex.P/2) was lodged at around 5.30 pm in the evening on the same day. Incident had happened at around 4:00 O'clock. In the aforesaid FIR act of the appellants have been mentioned. From the possession of the appellants an axe and a danda were seized. As per FSL report (Ex.P/20) human blood was also found on axe and danda, which were seized from the appellants.
14. The appellants entered into the house of the mother of the deceased. They had knowledge that the deceased had come to see his mother. One of the appellant was armed with an axe and another appellant was armed with danda. They had inflicted number of injuries on the person of the deceased. They had also beaten mother of the deceased, who tried to save the deceased. Hence, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that 7 appellants had killed the deceased. Now, the next question is that whether the act of the appellants would cover under Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC.
15. In the present case, the wife of the appellant Lalaram was living with the deceased three months before. She deposed that she was living voluntarily. There was no sudden provocation. Appellants had gone to the house of the mother of the deceased and they had inflicted number of injuries. They were armed with deadly weapons. Hence, in our opinion act of the appellant would not cover under Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC because to invoke the aforesaid exception. It must be proved that there was sudden and grave provocation as held by the Supreme Court. In the case of K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1962 SC 605], the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"The test of "grave and sudden" provocation under the Exception must be whether a reasonable person belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in a similar situation, would be so provoked as to lose his self control. In India, unlike in England, words and gestures may, under certain circumstances cause grave and sudden provocation so as to attract that Exception. The mental background created by any previous act of the victim can also be taken into consideration in judging whether the subsequent act could cause grave and sudden provocation, but the fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of the passion arising from that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down 8 by lapse of time or otherwise, giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation."
16. In case of B.D. Khunte vs. Union of India, [(2015) 1 SCC 286], the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. What is critical for a case to fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC is that the provocation must not only be grave but sudden as well. It is only where the following ingredients of Exception 1 are satisfied that an accused can claim mitigation of the offence committed by him from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder:-
(1) The deceased must have given provocation to the accused. (2) The provocation so given must have been grave.
(3) The provocation given by the deceased must have been sudden.
(4) The offender by reason of such grave and sudden provocation must have been deprived of his power of self-control; and (5) The offender must have killed the deceased or any other person by mistake or accident during the continuance of the deprivation of the power of self-control."
17. Next point is whether that the appellant Takhta Singh could be convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
18. The object and scope of Section 34-A is that there must be a meeting of minds in common intention and pre-arranged plan. Both the appellants had knowledge that the deceased had come to see his mother. They entered into the house of the mother of the deceased. They were armed with deadly weapon axe and danda. Thereafter, they had inflicted number of injuries, fatal blow on the person of the deceased and his mother.
9
19. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, trial Court has rightly invoked under Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants had intention to take revenge from the deceased. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.
(S.K. GANGELE) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
RJ
Digitally signed by RAJESH
KUMAR JYOTISHI
Date: 2018.02.21 18:21:06 +05'30'